The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-02
Commissioner Cooley Offers Some Sug-
gestionsin the Interest of Shippers.
Mr.. Clarence Seward Presents an Exhaustive
Argument Showing that Express Com
panies Are Not Amenable to the Law.
Condition of the Public Debt as Shown
by the Regular Monthly Statement.
How 1t Is Proposed to Remedy Inequalities In
the Postal Service-The Preparations for
the Coming Medical Congress.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
| Commissioner Cooley Makes Some Valuable
Suggestions for Business Men.
| WASHINGTON, Sept. L--Recenty an associa-
tion of wholesale erocers in Pittsburg filed with
| the Interstare-commerce Commission a protest
against any change asked by the New York
shippers in the present system of freight class-
fcaton between carloads on the one hand
and smaller quantities the other, but added
! that they deemed it unnecessary to enter into
| any argument on the subject other than to say
| that the said classification is, in their opinion,
! just and fair to all concerned" Judge Cooley,
acknowledging the receipt of the letter, COM
| ments as follows upon the disinclination occa-
sionally manifested by parties in interest to
| argue their cases before the commission:
ALLOW me to say that this is neither
| fair to the commission nor busness-lke. Any
such question as is presented by the New York
| petitions has two sides One side will be strong
iy presented by the petitioners. and AL the con.
siderations advanced which will tell their
favor. You appear to assume that the cosnms-
sion will nfalllbv discover the considerations
bearing on the other side, and you refrain frt 70
giving assistance. beg to remind you that il
you treated your lawsuits In the same way you
would generally get beaten, even when justice
was your side. The court needs the acts Of
of the case without. You may think the
railroads will present all that can be
sncs sala. 1hs ,hsv this .hn very unsafe fa se
interest, before the are concluded, to
weld to the petitioners claims. Railroads make
frequent changes in their classifcations, and for
aught we know they may be perfectly willing to
make the one now demanded The commission
is exceedingly desirous to administer the
law 5ustlv and according to it's spirit; but in
der to do this it is necessary that it have assist
ance from such persons able to render it.
And when citizens deliberately withhold such
assistance they will be fairly sSpped, if they
find that decisions are made to their detriment,
from making any complaint 1t is not in the nat
of things that the commission should not
sometimes be misled when only side of q
controversy is presented"
Express Companies and the Law.
NEW YORK. Sept. LIN June last the Inter-
state-commerce Commissioners ordered the
express companies to file with them. on Sept 1,
briefs on us the federal law regulating inter
state commerce applicable to express compa
nies?" Upon receipt of this order, all the ex-
press companies set about, through their re-
spective legal ccunselors, to obey it To day
Clarence Seward. for the Adams Express Com
pany; Mr.. Mcfarland. for the United States Ex-
press Company; Mr.. Chisholm, for the Southern;
Mr.. Pomeroy, for the National and American
express companies, and Messrs. Banding 6
PIllsbury, for Wells Fargo, submitted their
briefs to the commissioners. Mr. Seward, in
his opinion, expresses himself substantially as
the other legal gentlemen in theirs. SO that in
setting forth the contents OF his brief the sub
stance of the others is comprehended. Mr..
Seward starts with:
adams Express Company, not corporation
but a copartnership, asks opinion these
words: Does the interstate commerce act OF
Congress apply to express companiesP Thus
broadly stated and standing alone, the question
fyf,lr nYc dara fInr yph afh
ing the express business are. customers
and employers of railroads, entitled to evoke
the provisions of the act against interstate car
riers as passengers and shippers of
freight in general A communication from
the Interstate commission inc.osed with the let
ter OF inquiry makes 1t quite clear. however,
tn at the real question of the company may be
stated thus: Does the act point out or include
those doing express business as themselves COM
mon carriers of the description and having at
tributes, relationships and powers of those
riers upon and against whom exclusively the act
operatesP However confident may be the be-
lief OF those who hold ont that, regarded either
in negative or in a positive aspect, the act is
incapable of such construction. the commits
sion as appears from the letter of it's secre-
tary. deems the matter one of serious doubt and
deserving serious examination. The act is pro-
hibitory and penal. 1t is to be used with the
strictness and rigor with which penal statutes
and enabling statutes and dsenabll enact
ments are read by courts; this rule of construc-
ton is decisive against much latitude permissible
respecting provisions of other kinds. Various
acts of Congress. of them years
ago, had recognized express companies and
the peculiar species of service so distinctly
marked in its character in the words of Mr..
Justice Miller. Nearly year before the inter-
state-commerce act adopted the radical dis
tinction and antagonism between railroads and
express companies came before the Supreme
Court of the United States in searching in
quiry. and in these directly, the points
in Judgment involved decisions both of constItu-
tons and of statutes wherein found near
equivalents, mutats mutandis. of those now in
question in respect of the application to express
and to express business of language
descriptive of railroad rates of freight, etc.
The court emphasized in various forms the wide
distinction in law and fact yetween railroad
and companies doing express buSi-
ness and also between those CARRYING on express
business and shippers Of freight in general. In
the presence of these facts. if the Congress did
not use apt terms to brace express companies;
if, on the other hand, language used which,
read bv the light of these then recent and con-
spicuous judicial decisions. would plainly fail to
EN- brace express companies, IL would seem hard
" possible to ascribe to the law making power
an intention to deal with them. The Adams
Express Company is thus destitute of owner
ship. power and control: and it may also be
safely said that no express company whatever,
as such, owns or operates a railroad.
Looking at the statute without the aid of
these considerations, or of any canon of con-
structon il is obvious that express companies are
now here named IN terms referred to. Adams
Ex press Company has no charter. franchise or
light to take tolls. or operate any rail-
Dad or transportation ronte Tt is not the Great
of the State it the recipient OF any grant
IT other franchise from the State 1t is
irm of individuals. There few isolated
instances of Incorporated express companies in
Inc United States In this last distinction tho
company must be treated by itself. 1t has
more power over the fares, or freight. charges,
y management of any line of freight or travel
han any other mercantile firm, shipper pas
enger It is not even a shipper passenger
n the legal sense. the Supreme Court
as decided. 1t is a contractor with railroads and
team boats for the carriage of its messengers,
money. valuab and securities in the care OF
he latter. So specially unlike freightng
hipping Is the thing it does. that except by
and previously obtained consent. and
nder charges agreed upon. it cannot enter
abroad car or put parcel in it. About 40 per
ent of the gross receipts of tho express COM